Poll: Is funding Kickstarters from a big companies a good idea?

[Darknacht]

So as <link=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/moviebob/10234-Kickstopper>Bob mentioned a Veronica Mars Kickstarter has been put up and has over 50k backers and $3.5 million after 3 days. Its great that this is proving that Kickstarter can work for movies but Veronica Mars is owned by Warner Brothers and funding it doesn't even get you a ticket to the movie and it takes a contribution for $50 or more to get a DVD(probably months after its been released in theaters), it seems like WB will get all of the profit from the movie without having to pay for it and still charging the backers to see it.
So, is funding Kickstarters from a big companies a good idea?

 

[Newtonyd]

$50 dollars is way too much to pay just to experience the product you're funding. Most projects I've seen agree to give their product to backers at a price substantially less than it will be at retail. I agree that this situation seems to be a kind of a rip off, and most other projects are far more reasonable.

 

[smithy_2045]

If people want to give their money to help fund something like this, why shouldn't they be allowed to? It's their money, they're aware of what they get/don't get for pledging a certain amount, so if they're willing to do so I see no reason why it should be discouraged.

 

[Frungy]

In my opinion kickstarter is for small business people and entrepreneurs who want to see their product/dream/company become a reality without selling their product/dream/company to big corporations, banks or venture capitalists.

It is about making dreams come true for those who would never have had an opportunity without selling away their rights to their dream to someone else.

Big companies? No, I wouldn't pay a penny to a big business' kickstarter. Why? Because they can fund it themselves. I'd rather reserve my contributions for dreamers. Of course big business are pretty wise to this, which is why they put this kickstarted under Veronica Mars rather than Warner Bros.

Oh, and I never invest in projects unless I feel I'm getting a fair deal. I can buy a 2012 movie DVD for about $15. Paying $50 up-front for a DVD that I may not see for years just seems like a bad deal. The last kickstarter I invested in I got an amazing compact speaker for about half what I would normally have paid for it. I took a bit of risk investing in the project, had to wait for a while to get the product, and in return I got a hefty discount and got to help someone achieve their dream and start their business. I'd say that's a fair deal all round. The WB/Veronica Mars thing just doesn't strike me as a fair deal.

 

[Andy Shandy]

No. I'll admit I'm not a huge fan of Kickstarter in general but I can understand it for little businesses and such.

However, a big company like WB using this just pisses me off. First, you make the consumer pay for the film even being made. Then you encourage someone to pay 10 grand for a role that normally somebody would be being paid for so somebody isn't getting a job there (however minor this role is). Additionally, you're making most of these people pay for the right to see the movie at the cinema - and since you would assume they're all fans of the series, they will. And WB walks away with the profits.

I can see why WB would do something like this (it is basically a no-risk move for them) but it annoys me to hell that they are. When you become a big company, you're supposed to fund shit with your own money, not gouging fans multiple times for it.

 

[Soviet Steve]

In my nightmare gaming world, Activision fund Modern Warfare 15 in a $10.000.000 kickstarting campaign. When the game launches, it costs 100 bucks, comes with 50 bucks worth of day one DLC PLUS microtransactions like a level pack which gives you max level instantly.

So no, I don't really like the idea.

Might not be MW15 (maybe Modern Warfare REsomething -this time its personal edition-) but I give it five years before this happens.

 

[ron1n]

What I wish kickstarter would do, is actually leverage all the attention that the big projects get and use it to properly advertise smaller projects. I think it does a lousy job of helping people find the smaller start ups at the moment. I mean, they just tend to plaster up stuff that's already been funded or close to the goal (obviously because it's in their best interests so they can get their cut)

This means that more often than not, the majority of the projects that get funded, are the ones backed by a big social media advertising blitz etc.

 

[Angie7F]

Maybe the smaller ones are ok.
But for me kickstarter is not something I would take part of.
But then again i dont do stocks or buy lotto tickets

 

[poiuppx]

I love Kickstarter, and I love fans having a measure of say in what does or does not get made. When you rely directly on the people for funding, it forces you to think not about pushing out sales at all costs from Day 1; instead, you have to think about 'What would be appealing for people, how do I communicate that to them, and how do I reward them for their support?'. What bothers me is that some of the above people and folks talking about the V-Mars Kickstarter in general are of the mind that since the property is owned by WB, they should foot the bill. But there's the rub, friends; they won't. They don't think Veronica Mars is a property worth supporting. If they DID, it would probably be on the air now. That's how this sort of thing works.

But raising this much money and attention, with the big names already behind it and ready to roll? That changes the game.

How many of us have a pet franchise that arrived stillborn, or that took a nosedive because of stupid choices often outside the control of the original creator(s)? Movies, books, shows, games... we've all had it happen at least once. Kickstarter is giving a second chance at life to things that otherwise never would. And I applaud that.

That said, if the above mentioned fear of some big name studio doing this to fund their next blockbuster game came true... it'd probably fail. Hard. There's a sharp difference between crowd-funding something people want but there's no way they'd otherwise get, and looking to the people solely as a free money bucket. And putting up some obscenely high requirement, which any AAA title in this day and age would need, would just result in fail in the end. However, if this resulted in studios/publishers being willing to fund LESSER and riskier titles that have long since been consigned to the dust bin, with rewards and constant updates for the faithful, then who knows? Might be the direct connection between the studios and fans the industry has long needed to remind the industry we're more than just wallets on legs and to remind fans that actual human beings are on the other side of the credits list.

tl;dr: I love Kickstarter, I love Veronica Mars. Ain't no way I'm polling against either.

 

[lacktheknack]

Only if they send the product to the backers at a reasonable donation level. They can certainly afford to do that much.

Otherwise, they can finally test "risky" waters with no fallout if it falls through. We've wanted this for years. Are we going to let our anti-capitalistic sides override that?

 

[evilneko]

Maybe.

I would think really hard about it and possibly donate to a Babylon 5 kickstarter--even if it was by WB. JMS owns movie rights to it though, and you bet your ass I'd donate for that... but if WB wanted to do another TV series, and could get JMS (and maybe Harlan Ellison) on board for it, well... I might have a hard time saying no...

So I guess what I'm getting at is if it's used for a niche production that might be otherwise deemed too risky, I might consider it. Especially TV Sci-Fi, which is notoriously expensive and risky.

 

[Tropicaz]

With this situation, if the kickstarter wasnt used then the film wouldnt be made - WB had repeately said it wasnt worth it to them to do it. So I put money in for it. Also you'll find at $35 you can get a digital copy close to when the the film releases, so you dont have to go and pay the cinema to see it. Granted thats more than a single ticket but i'm probably going to watch it more than once.

If you dont want to fund something, you dont have to. Personally, if i want something badly enough i'm prepared to put the money up front to ensure it gets made.

 

[CriticalMiss]

I think big companies should take the risk on themselves they have the financial security to do so afterall. Whilst I don't think it is inherently bad for them to seek consumer approval, they could do so without taking cash off them up front or at least give donation rewards that are fitting for the amounts given.

Whilst I sometimes look through Kickstarters I've given myself the rule to never actually hand over any money to projects, even if I like them. I'd probably bankrupt myself investing in portable air conditioners for dogs, plus I don't mind paying a little bit extra for something after it has been successfully funded and brought to fruition. But if I saw Valve had a Half Life 3 kickstarter, I'd question what the hell they were doing. The same if Disney wanted customers' money up front for the next Star Wars films. Although if there was a stretch goal for a scene showing the horrible torture of Jar Jar Binks...